HUMANITY'S HURDLE IS THE VETO IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL

We Must Make the Leap

Summary

On September 22, more than a 100 heads of state or government will beginning making their annual speeches in the United Nations General Assembly, while selection of the next Secretary-General proceeds. We should listen carefully to what member states' heads say about revising the UN Charter.

The veto power of five permanent members of the UN Security Council is outdated and unjust, enabling a few powerful states and their allies to get away with wars of aggression, even mass slaughter or genocide. While we must not abolish the veto abruptly, for fear of making the Council even less relevant — great powers simply ignoring its resolutions — neither should we believe the fable that the veto is impossible to change. It is a formidable challenge, yes, but we must make the leap. Only by incrementally eroding the use and power of the veto will we succeed in improving international peace and security.

PHUKET — Imagine a village of nearly 200 households. Within each home, crimes such as murder or theft are strictly punished. However, in the larger village, if one family starts killing members of another over some grievance, or stealing their cows, there is no mechanism to stop the mayhem or punish them. After a particular deadly feud, a Village Council is established to try and deal with the problem.

Representatives of different households sit on the Council to keep the peace. The idea is simple. Acting together, families can step in and stop any violence or theft, resorting to joint force when necessary, marching together to the offender's compound with their pitchforks to put things right.

The system works in a fair number of cases, but the exceptions are glaring and bloody. Even after three generations, repeated deadly feuding continues.

The problem is that when the Council was created, and the village counted only 50 households, the most powerful families insisted they be given permanent seats, along with the power to overrule any decision.

The unfortunate result was that permanent members could ignore the law. If they killed members of another household, or stole their property, then they would smugly veto action by the Council on the issue and cross their arms. They regularly got away with mass murder, and shielded their murderous friends as well.

Most of the other families agreed this is very wrong, but the original agreement was that permanent members could also veto any changes to the rules. It was believed they were stuck with the situation.

One day, after yet another gruesome rampage by one of the permanent members, the other families had had enough. Sanity suddenly prevailed and they decided they would not continue to accept this anachronistic injustice and killing. They called a General Meeting of the whole village to discuss what to do.

It was finally agreed to eliminate the special power of their bullying neighbours to break the law, and simply refuse to allow them to veto this change. Faced with a showdown with the rest of the village, angry and united, the powerful troublemakers were forced to agree.

However, the village elders were wise. They knew the former permanent representatives could still wreak havoc, so they proposed that they keep their seats for 20 years and that their votes would count x2. Also, since the village had grown so much, more families would be represented on the Council.

The Veto in the Security Council is a Huge Problem for Humanity and We Are Dithering

Of course, this parable is about the United Nations Security Council. Member states have performed embarrassingly poorly compared to the families in my typical village(1). The UN Charter has hardly been altered in over 80 years, and not at all for over half a century since a few small changes were made(2), most notably expanding the number of non-permanent seats on the Security Council by four to a total of 15.

Article 109 of the Charter allows for a General Conference to review the UN Charter, originally suggested to be held after 10 years. However, after 80 years, such a Conference has never been held. The General Assembly adroitly ducked the issue back in 1955, deciding that a General Conference should be held "at an appropriate time." The Assembly also set up a planning committee comprised of all member states who were to report back in 1957. They are now 69 years late.

Importantly, permanent members of the Security Council cannot block either the calling of such a Conference or its recommendations, both of which require only a two thirds majority of the General Assembly. They can, however, block their implementation. But they must do this once they are confronted with a formal recommendation painstakingly hammered out by the rest of the world. While the current US administration would relish such an opportunity to demonstrate its unilateral power, future governments might not be so rash and arrogant.

Formal negotiations on reforming the Security Council have been ongoing for over 33 years, since 1993, and continue today in the Intergovernmental Negotiations begun in 2009. No consensus has begun to emerge. The G4 (Germany, Japan, India and Brazil), support each other's claim to a permanent seat, creating an unhelpful blockade. The African Union advocates eliminating the veto, but if it cannot be eliminated, that Africa be granted two permanent seats plus more non-permanent seats. The Uniting for Consensus coalition ('the Coffee Club'), advocates for only expanding non-permanent seats. The L.69 Group of primarily developing countries seeks to expand both permanent and non-permanent seats for better geographical coverage.

The African Union has had the vision to call for eliminating the veto, along with a few small states and civil society groups. The disappointing temerity of other states is based on their estimation that the permanent members will never agree. Yet this is self-defeating; even back in 1945, there were states — notably Uruguay and Australia — that stood against the veto.

 What Is To Be Done?

It is telling that France and the UK have not used their vetoes since 1989, instead aligning with multilateral positions, especially the EU's. No longer superpowers, they understand that flaunting their vetoes would likely lead to a revolt against them.

Conversely, the willingness of the USA to use its veto more than 40 times to block resolutions on the question of Palestine and Israel alone, repeatedly voting against all others, demonstrates the Security Council‘s limitations. Were the veto instantly eliminated today, we would likely face an even worse situation — with one or more super powers openly defying Council resolutions, leaving other nations unable to enforce them. This could threaten the United Nations itself.

Total Vetoes Cast in the Security Council (graph from Wikipedia)

Realistically, incremental change is the only viable way forward. But forward we must go. Failure to push for limitations on the veto, leaving the Security Council forever gridlocked, will also threaten the survival of the United Nations. It absolutely must be improved or it will fail and fall. The aspiration to make it more democratic must be expressed, pursued and in due course, achieved.

The way forward is through a General Conference to review the Charter. Incremental limitation of the veto, expanded Security Council representation, and enhanced authority for the General Assembly(3), would be key definitions of success. Practical possibilities on the veto might include:

a) requiring at least two, or at the very least, one other state, to vote "No" together with a Permanent Member, in order for passage of a resolution to be blocked; and/or

b) disallowing members from voting under Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression when they are deemed to be a party to the conflict; and/or

c) empowering a super-majority of the General Assembly to overrule a veto. There is a precedent — the Suez Crisis in 1956 — when two permanent members, France and the UK, had attacked Egypt for annexing the Suez canal and were overruled by the General Assembly.(4)

We must not give in to cynicism that change is not possible. Change is not only possible, it is essential and inevitable. Although securing unanimous support from the permanent members is a formidable challenge, incremental reforms along the lines suggested in a), b) or c), or variants thereof, offer an achievable path towards improving international security and the search for peace. We must not fail to leap the hurdle, high as it is, and continue forward down that path.

——————————

1. In 1985/86 I lived in a Botswana village. My work was partly governed by Chief Gabarone, usually in public meetings of the entire village called the Khotla. His brother was the chairman of my Board. The "crazy woman" usually spoke first and was unintelligible, even to natives. She would go on for 10 minutes, while everyone sat patiently on the dirt in the late morning sun. Chief Gabarone had brilliantly made her a symbol of freedom of speech. I was awed.

2. The most significant changes expanded the Security Council from 11 to 15 members in 1965, increasing the number of elected, non-permanent members from six to ten to reflect the growth in UN membership. Amendments also enlarged the Economic and Social Council and adjusted voting thresholds accordingly.

3. In 1950, General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 377 A, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, decided that in any cases where the Security Council lacks unanimity among its permanent members and thus fails to act as required to maintain the peace, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to UN members for collective measures, including the use of armed force.

4. At that time, vetoes in the Security Council by France and the UK were effectively overruled by the General Assembly. It held an emergency session under "Uniting for Peace" and adopted a resolution establishing the United Nations Emergency Force to address the Suez crisis. France and the UK then ceased their attack on Egypt and yielded to international pressure to withdraw. Critics argue that this was more a demonstration of American power than of the General Assembly's.

——————————

Comments are welcome below.

——————————

Email:  billpaton@qq.com  WeChat: bmpaton WhatsApp: +66 6 344 844 34